Increasing the safety features on vehicles paradoxically makes them less safe. I flew a few years ago with a senior design engineer from Ford. His view was that the only way to make driving safer is to modify driver behaviour by removing all the safety features. No seat belts, airbags, impact bars and the rest.

His ideal car has a wooden chassis and bodywork with the tensile strength of tissue paper. The petrol tank is a plastic bag beneath the drivers seat, and the seats theselves are deck chairs attached to the sub-frame with bungee cords. The brakes are calipers operated by foot pressure alone. Such a configuration would remove drivers from their safety zone and make them drive better and more considerately.

Would there be no option of manual control? What happens when you get in and the car tells you trip is cancelled because congestion is to great, you have used up your CO2 credits for the month, or that destination is not approved by the government? If there is manual control overrides, that gets rid of the 'drunk driver' application because we all know that the sixth level of tequila is that you are superman. ;)
Robot cars are about as likely as flying cars. The real revolution (evolution?) will be in increasing aids to the driver. From ABS brakes, rear view sonar, blind spot warnings, to impact avoiding cruise control there will be more and more aids that make a driver safer. Cars already brake harder than the driver commands based on collision likelyhood. Systems that monitor lane position and keep sleepy drivers in their lane are becoming more common. I'm surprised that there haven't been implemented 'local networks' that operate on the order of bluetooth range that cars can tell what speed nearby cars are going and if they are braking or swerving to give a heads-up to the driver. We will see these 'augmented ability' devices to allow drivers with reduced envelope of skills to allow drivers to drive more safely.
Lots of talk of drunk drivers. There must be more 20 somethings without kids here than I thought. The economics of giving drunks a free ride probably don't support the economics of implementing the system- there would have to be more tangible benefits.

My computer crashes occasionally, not really a big deal as I just re-boot it. Now - if I was travelling at 100km / hr and a 30,000 kilo truck was heading the opposite way when that happened, the situation would be different.

Now, it is a valid point that Google may be capable of building a vehicle with better driving capabilities than either I or the theoretical truck driver possess and the overall accident rate will go down. However...and this is a very important point in my view...in the USA tort lawyers sue the parties with the deepest pockets when they attempt to recover damages. If I make a driving error and maim / kill someone, the potential lawsuit is limited to what I have and the insurance coverage I carry. In most cases there is the further limiting factor that any jury hearing the case is going to empathize with me to some extent, feeling "there but for the grace of God go I." When a Google piloted vehicle mows down some innocent, the pockets will be very deep and the empathy non-existent. Were I running Google, I would limit this technology to specialized situations - say re-supplying troops in combat zones - and as a supplement to human controlled vehicles, rear end crash avoidance and the like.

"Were I running Google, I would limit this technology to specialized situations - say re-supplying troops in combat zones - and as a supplement to human controlled vehicles, rear end crash avoidance and the like."

Alternatively, were I running Google, I would depoly this technology where there is sensible tort laws such as Japan, and explicitly inscribe prohibition of its use anywhere in the United States on each and every unit in operation.

"Real Americans drive their own cars" could be used as a marketing argument for one car maker who doesn't offer self-driving cars against another car maker who does. I don't think that's going to be the case because I think that all the car makers are going there (or will start going there soon), plus there are going to be manufacturers of just that system (Google and others), which you're going to be able to purchase and install such a system on cars which don't have it yet. I don't see any company trying to dissuade customers from making that purchase and installation by using such an argument. The only ones who might do so could be consumer groups, religious groups, etc.

A day doesn't go by in Toronto where we don't wish our mayor, Rob Ford, had one of these, since he refuses to accept a personal human chauffeur to protect commuters from his habit of texting, reading and generally ignoring cyclists while he's behind the wheel. And a chauffeur, human or electronic, would protect him from the mockery he brings on himself. In fact, he is the perfect candidate to advertise the benefits of the electronic chauffeur vehicle.

A lot of people seem to be of the opinion that drunks will benefit the most from electronically chauffeured vehicles. Aren't we all a little concerned that these vehicles will serve as enablers for alcoholics to drink more and pass out at the wheel? Until these cars are designed to anticipate and measure the driver's level of inebriation, know the route home, observe all of the traffic laws between bar and home, slow down and/ or stop within a safe distance of pedestrians and the neighbourhood cat, park themselves in the garage and (bonus!) turn themselves off so that the entire household isn't asphixiated, I personally won't feel 100% safe walking home in the evening... or the day for that matter.

As oppposed to the current situation where most Americans never drive after a couple of beers. Iwas genuinely shocked at how accepted drink driving was when I went to the states. We went for a big meal, all had a few beers and whilst the brits all ordered taxis, the americans went to their cars and drove home. These weren't idiots either these were corporate execs. Driverless car sounds great. go to the bar, get tanked, get in your car, flip the swicth, wake up at home. brilliant.

1. If you want to hijack means of transportation for the cause of preventing people from getting drunk, you should also shut down your subway and bus lines and cabs after 11pm, because people use them when they're drunk, and are thus encouraging drinking.
2. You can feel free to walk home safely, but as always, don't get down to the road before you look to both directions and you're sure you can finish crossing the street safely even if the cars on the street don't stop for you.
3. Cars are going to be better at recognizing people on the road than human drivers. Infra-red and thermal vision will allow that even in pitch darkness.

"know the route home, observe all of the traffic laws between bar and home, slow down and/ or stop within a safe distance of pedestrians and the neighbourhood cat, park themselves in the garage and (bonus!) turn themselves off" Check check check check and check. Also, when someone is caught drunk driving, some municipalities order that a breathalizer be installed in the car, so to "anticipate and measure the driver's level of inebriation", check as well.

I'm not trying to prevent anyone from getting drunk. Go ahead, just don't get behind the wheel of a car. If you read my comment again, you'll realize I'm talking about people who think they can command their own vehicle after they've had too many to drink. I personally believe that cabs and buses are perfectly acceptable vehicles to transport drunks when they don't have a designated driver/friend to get them home.
What I was saying was that I wouldn't feel safe unless the self-driven cars they are proposing have all of the bases covered, rather than just providing some kind of glorified cruise control. When a person can't make the common sense decision to not get behind the wheel because they're too drunk, why should we believe that his/her decision making is going to be any better when they're behind a car with all the bells and whistles? If only one drunk kills a person because they neglect to turn on the controls these proposed cars provide, it's still one too many.

Where I live, the laws refer to being "in care and control" of a motor vehicle while intoxicated. I think a drunk driver would be deemed in care and control, just as he would if he were using cruise control.

So what about taking a train? Why is it that boarding high-speed rail does not inspire fear, when boarding a plane does (not in me, but in some people I know)? The people on the ICE that derailed near Eschede, Germany, ten years ago, tearing down a bridge, never knew what hit them, nor, presumably, did the passengers on the two high-speed trains that collided in China last year.

If we are ignorant of the way in which internal components failures sates interact with external human errors in design and specification, then the certainty of death is clear. But software engineers promoting the driver-less car do not understand this. Nor do sponsors of the driver-less cars understand these facts.

Just like electric cars seemed fanciful a few years ago, a hardcore of early adopting visionaries will lead the charge, and when the sceptics notice that even their neighbour has one, even they will start to open to the possibility.

Even those that love driving would love to have that morning commute time to use as their own while the car ferries them to work, let alone high mileage drivers, and delivery drivers. Insurance premiums will eventually create a market that forces fleet managers to insist the machine takes the wheel.

The marketeers will come up with a way of persuading motorists that the type of self-drive vehicle they sit in, some how aligns with their values and we'll buy them.

Just like electric cars seemed fanciful a few years ago, a hardcore of early adopting visionaries will lead the charge, and when the sceptics notice that even their neighbour has one, even they will start to open to the possibility.

Even those that love driving would love to have that morning commute time to use as their own while the car ferries them to work, let alone high mileage drivers, and delivery drivers. Insurance premiums will eventually create a market that forces fleet managers to insist the machine takes the wheel.

The marketeers will come up with a way of persuading motorists that the type of self-drive vehicle they sit in, some how aligns with their values and we'll buy them.

To all those who are hoping their car can drive them home from the bar/pub...
The only thing which will enable this technology to go mainstream, is a complete absolution of responsibility on behalf of the car manufacturer, leaving the car owner/passenger just as responsible for accidents as if he/she were the driver.
Perhaps this can't happen in the litigious culture of the US, if so then driverless cars will be pioneered elsewhere.

Why do you think self-driving cars won't be developed otherwise? Even if car makers can be sued for tort, if I'm a car maker who has developed such system, I'll estimate the amount of losses from settlements and court rulings and I'll charge the customers enough extra to cover those losses. Needless to mention, the better the system, the lower those sums.

The driverless car issue will ultimately be decided by cost, which in this context means insurance.

If the insurance companies refuse to issue policies for cars with a driverless option on the basis of insufficient experience to properly price the risk, it'll die on the Catch-22 vine.

If the insurance companies charge a premium for cars with the feature (entirely possible- even if they are a safer option, the liability claims are a potential litigation nightmare), it'll be limited to a high-end status symbol toy.

If the insurance companies charge level or offer a discount with the feature, it'll take off.

Self-driving cars create value to their owners. Potentially, they can do a better job, leading to less damage. And don't underestimate the time you're gaining. You can sleep longer in the morning and finish tying your tie / reading the newspaper / drinking your coffee / checking your e-mail and answering it / watching some morning news on TV / preparing the final touches on a presentation while in the car on your way to work. All this has plenty of value, and people who will become more productive as a result will be willing to pay extra -- whether for the cars themselves or for insurance.
And if you don't trust the system on highways or in the city, only let it take control when you're in heavy traffic. I'm sure that at least it will be able to follow other cars well.

As a longtime resident of Los Angeles, I can tell you there are a disturbingly large number of drivers who are already engaging in those "productive" behaviors in their cars without a self-driving feature. Granted, the new feature will allow them to do this without breaking the law and increasing accident rates.

But the bottom line is, well, the bottom line. Given the choice between a mostly unquantifiable productivity gain and a hard cost for insurance, the insurance cost will be most peoples' deciding factor. Particularly if, at first, the insurance companies won't cover this. Insurance is mandatory in most jurisdictions now.

Which may be the driver (no pun intended) for adoption of the electornically controlled cars. Now nobody has to stay sober (and put up with the drunken antics of the rest of the party, which are much easier to tolerate when you are drunk too)!

This is incredibly important and welcome new technology. I'm 60 years old and my vision is going fast; I used to love my Vespa, but that's out now. I live in Boston, where a car is not really needed but there are times when something other than the dreadful cabs & trolly would be very, very useful.

My mother, who lived in suburban NJ, was never the same after she stopped driving. The loss of independence and dignity was just to much for her and her world started to close in....Now she's in assisted living 'transitioning' to Medicaid. How much better for everyone if she had had this option. Good for you Mr. Brandes -- if I lived in FLA you'd have my vote just for this kind of imaginative, clear-headed thinking!

My theory has been that when enough baby boomers pass that horrible American watershed, losing their driver's licenses, we will have driverless cars - those influential voters will beat a path to their state capitols! Continued autonomy for the elderly, safer streets for everyone - that should hopefully be incentive enough to solve the insurance conundrums other comments highlight.